Many in the media have struggled mightily to ignore the highly disturbing evidence that has been released in the Flynn case and to paint the decision to dismiss the case as a raw political act by Attorney General Bill Barr. CNN this morning even called former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe who proceeded to make statements about the record that were utterly absurd and untrue. Not only was McCabe not challenged on the statements, it was never mentioned that he was fired after being found by career investigators to have lied to them (the very charge against Flynn). Despite the fact that his false statements were related to this very case, it was not deemed relevant to raise by CNN with CNN’s senior analyst. McCabe however displayed the very bias and maliciousness documented by career investigators before he was fired. The interview reminds one of the recently released text of FBI Deputy Assistant Director Peter Strzok to Lisa Page, the Special Counsel to FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, remarking that “our utter incompetence actually helps us.”
CNN host John Berman interviewed McCabe. CNN has long used McCabe to give analysis on a host of Trump-related stories despite being fired by Trump, ridiculed for his prior bias, and referred (by career officials) for possible criminal charges.
This interview, however, was even more remarkable. The documents released in the Flynn case referred to McCabe and his alleged misconduct. He was not asked about any of the specific allegations against him. Instead, he gave a revisionist history that quickly crossed into fantasy.
McCabe told Berman that, in December 2016, they were considering the closure of the investigation involving Flynn but that it was a “close question.” We have previously discussed this history. On January 4, 2017, the FBI’s Washington Field Office issued a “Closing Communication” indicating that the bureau was terminating “CROSSFIRE RAZOR” — the newly disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. CROSSFIRE RAZOR was formed to determine whether Flynn “was directed and controlled by” or “coordinated activities with the Russian Federation in a manner which is a threat to the national security” of the United States or a violation of federal foreign agent laws. The FBI investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that “no derogatory information was identified in FBI holdings.” Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that Flynn “was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella case.”
After Strzok intervened to stop the closure of the investigation, he texted FBI lawyer Lisa Page “Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?” Page replied “Phew. But yeah that’s amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess.” Strzok replied “Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I’m guessing :)”
So McCabe was left unchallenged in saying that at that time there was a close question as to whether to close Crossfire Razor when his investigators found nothing. Nothing. That made it a close question for McCabe whether to continue to investigate the incoming Trump National Security Adviser.
What McCabe stated next was truly incredible. He told Berman that he then learned that Flynn has arranged “surreptitious meetings” with the Russians. He explained that this was akin to investigating someone for drug dealing and then learning about his meeting with drug dealers. The problem is that there was no evidence of a crime of any kind against Flynn. Moreover, this was not a “surreptitious” meeting. There was no reason for McCabe to know about the communications of the incoming National Security Adviser with foreign officials. It was not “surreptitious.” Flynn reportedly told the transition team about the call and that the Russians wanted to talk after the newly imposed sanctions against them. It is not “surreptitious” just because McCabe did not know about it and he did not reach out to the Transition Team.
It was perfectly legal (and unsurprising) that the Russians spoke to the incoming National Security Adviser after the imposition of sanctions. Trump had stated publicly that he wanted to reframe the relations with the Russians and indicated that the review would include the sanctions. The conversation was both lawful and consistent with the position of the incoming Administration.
He also stated that he still fears that Flynn was a national security threat. Why? Because he spoke with the Russians about their opposition to the new sanctions?
The most surprising element of the interview however was not McCabe reinventing history but the complete absence of probing questions about these contradictions or the allegations against him personally in this case. For example, while McCabe was saying that he would continue to stand up for career Justice officials, there was no question about his reportedly cutting off another high-ranking official who raised concerns about this aggressive pursuit of Flynn. McCabe and James Comey were discussing the use of the Logan Act, a flagrantly unconstitutional law, to create a crime upon which to prosecute Flynn. The law has never been used to convict a single person because it is viewed as a direct violation of the First Amendment. Was that raised? Of course not.
In this story, McCabe is not a new analyst. He is news. Instead of pressing him on these conflicts and allegations, he was allowed to rage against Trump, Barr, and Flynn. It is a new twist on echo journalism. McCabe the CNN analyst was echoing his own false account and calling it news analysis.
This interview, however, was even more remarkable aka (BS). The documents released in the Flynn case referred to McCabe and his alleged misconduct aka lying. He was not asked about any of the specific allegations against him aka typical of cnn. Instead, he gave a revisionist history that quickly crossed into fantasy. He must be on those mushrooms again!
This Democrat gets it. From J H Kunstler’s blog:
———–
The pretext was some conversations General Flynn had with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak a few weeks before the inauguration. The FBI cooked up a “narrative” that it was criminal misbehavior for a duly appointed incoming NSA to confab with foreign diplomats — a completely specious notion, of course. The Interagency’s errand boys in the press ran with that preposterous story, and the inconsolable cohort of Hillary voters herding up to form “the Resistance” went along with the gag out of sheer, crazed bitterness.
Attorney General William Barr neatly disposed of that yarn Thursday in his remarkable chat with Catherine Herridge of CBS-News (transcript here), saying:
[H]e [General Flynn] was the designated national security adviser for President-Elect Trump, and was part of the transition, which is recognized by the government and funded by the government as an important function to bring in a new administration. And it is very typical, very common, for the national security team of the incoming president to communicate with foreign leaders.”
Could it be plainer? In dismissing the case, Mr. Barr gave such concise, lucid, and comprehensive account of his action that the enraged cadres of the Resistance immediately set their hair on fire and lit up the cable news channels with thunderous objurgation. The most amusing instance featured the apoplectic homunculus Jerrold Nadler, who threatened to haul Mr. Barr before his House Judiciary committee to do some ‘splainin’ in the matter. That’s a colloquy I’d pay to hear — the stolid AG laying it out again in calm, straight talk with Mr. Nadler in such a stammering fury that his bariatric surgery adhesions finally give out and the committee chamber gets splattered with bits of brisket, kugel, and Dr. Brown’s Cel-Ray tonic.
Another ripe one was the MSNBC session between Resistance errand-boy Chris Hayes and the redoubtably mendacious Congressman Adam Schiff, whose own overloaded garbage barge of seditious perfidy was blown out of the water with one well-aimed torpedo by new Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, who threatened to immediately release Mr. Schiff’s trove of long-hidden interview transcripts from the House Intelligence Committee 2017 hearings on RussiaGate if the congressman did not do it himself and at once. The transcripts, you see, completely refute Mr. Schiff’s own longstanding edifice of falsehood about having evidence of collusion between Mr. Trump and Russia. If the Democratic Party had any dignity, they’d take away his committee chairmanship, at least.
———–
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky–“If the Democratic Party had any dignity, they would take away [Schiff’s] committee chairmanship.”
Yes, if they had any dignity.
Instead, expect Schiff to be heaped with honors.
You’re nothing but a hack. Flynn is guilty as the day is long. Full stop. And you know it. https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/turley-impeachment-hypocrisy/
JG:
“Flynn is guilty as the day is long.”
***************
You’re not guilty until you’re adjudged as such and the prosecution just threw away the case. It’s a law blog, you know. Words mean stuff.
Mark,
btb and the rest of his ilk aren’t concerned with the rule of law. First and foremost, they’re ideology justifies their actions and the law is merely a weapon to further their cause. Unfortunately, the rule of law defends them from the very injustice they willfully wielded against their victims.
Mespo, might want to discuss this with a lawyer, but I think when you appear before a judge and plead guilty under oath, you’re guilty. Just a hunch.
BTB- You should leave off the legal analysis. Your venture into the jurisdiction of the federal courts in a previous thread was a humiliating failure. You simply do not understand legal matters.
Take up talking about quantum theory and harvest fresh humiliations.
” …but I think when you appear before a judge and plead guilty under oath, you’re guilty. Just a hunch.”
******************
And an incorrect one. No adjudication until a judge accepts and enters the guilty plea making it final. And even that can be vacated for good cause shown. You might want to consult a lawyer.
I once saw a defendant confess in open court to killing the cop who testified against him and was still in the courtroom. We account for crazies, clowns and the coerced in the courtroom. We need to do that on the blog more.
Mespo– You recommended that Book consult a lawyer. Please don’t. If he ever gets in trouble I would hope he exhibits his legal skills and represents himself. I am sure it would work out well.
Anon, won’t be found competent to represent himself and the court will consider institutionalizing him.
He insists he’s never been sued and does his own taxes. Don’t think is son is admitted in Florida.
Anon – sometimes you plead guilty because you no longer can afford to be innocent.
The defense attorney whose client was framed in John Grisham’s nonfiction work The Innocent Man had a motto: “Innocent until proven broke”.
“Words mean stuff”
Correct you are most competent to be emperor. I enjoy your command of language. Lord knows I’m deficient in that area.
et al: words like Germane come to my mind, & more importantly a word, “Material” comes to many lawyer’s mind as it did with Robert Barnes in regards to the Obama’s FBI/DOJ/CIA/17 intel agencies/5 eyes inc, frame up case against Ret Lt Gen. Fylnn.
If I recall correctly…. 1st 5 to 15 minutes in?
https://banned.video/watch?id=5eb4c77dd03b690086b1b444
Waaaah! I don’t like what you said Turley, sooo I am going to call you names!!!
(There, I translated it for you! You’re welcome!)
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
And your an idiot. And a Hack. WOW, a hacking idiot?!? The financial pressure, coupled with the FBI’s failure to turn over exculpatory evidence, most likely contributed to his guilty plea. But of course, you don’t want to know that. Something called plausible deniability. Something you seem to wear well. Someday, I hope you are in a similar situation by not having exculpatory evidence given to your defense team. It would be poetic justice. Or Justice for thee,but none for me.
Mr. Turley, this article is pure propaganda hiding behind your erudition. Flynn is guilty as the day is long. Period. Do your students know your politics? I don’t understand how GWU is still employing you with the way you try to subvert your knowledge of the US Constitution for your own political agenda. The Nation summed it up quite nicely: you’re nothing but a hack: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/turley-impeachment-hypocrisy/
Right. And here we have the Authoritarian “Let’s-Cancel-Anyone-Who-Disagrees-With-Us” Left. Frightening.
Anon– Insults, employment threats, censorship– in a single paragraph you have exemplified several things we have come to hate about Fascists.
Here’s the most important part of this going backwards and forwards:
“It was perfectly legal (and unsurprising) that the Russians spoke to the incoming National Security Adviser after the imposition of sanctions. Trump had stated publicly that he wanted to reframe the relations with the Russians and indicated that the review would include the sanctions. The conversation was both lawful and consistent with the position of the incoming Administration.”
Backwards, important because it was all a heap of dung, not a good prosecution, in fact, it was interference with lawful government, by a stay behind faction inside of a different agency of government.
Forwards important, because if elections are to be respected, then the lawful discretion of the incoming Presidential team, or other victorious candidates, from whichever parties, must be respected by others in government who feel personally disappointed in the outcomes. Everyone needs to put that system above their personal whims. McCabe did not. Sztroke did not. This is clear.
The severe lack of respect for our democratic system by these scoundrels is shockingly bad.
What’s worse is the abject failure of their fellow factions in the press to admit it.
This is a country with a serious problem of disunity and lack of common purpose.,
“The severe lack of respect for our democratic system by these scoundrels is shockingly bad.”
We agree Kurtz. The loser of the vote took office after being aided by the Russians and then the Russians were rewarded for that help. In fact they still are being rewarded as there has been no effort by Trump to protect our 2018 or 2020 elections and he has even taken Putin’s side against our own intelligence agencies – including his own appointments – in declaring them innocent. Now, what is Trump getting for his continued collusion, or maybe that’s the wrong question. He may owe them more than the presidency, given his strung out financial situation in the 2000s and shadowy reliance on Russian oligarches.
Book,
Either you are blinded by your own factional interests or you are a disciplined advocate who sticks to the party line and is busy every day advancing it
i don’t think you are stupid, i think you are disciplined. this is what you perceive your interests to be and you are acting on them.
but it is not true. I wont keep flogging the whys of that. Let’s take a deeper look at your rhetorical strategy.
I understand that postmodernist thinking has entirely suffused the Democrat party now and it has no regard for some long abandoned notion of objective truth. we need only study the professorial works of Pete Butt’s father who was an eminent cataloguer of Gramsci
here the nation gushes over Professor Buttigieg’s work and its influence on Mayor Pete
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/buttigieg-gramsci-indiana-president/
Karl Marx elaborated “dialectical materialism” which is a system of thinking following Hegel, which fed into Nietzsche, and Heidegger, a man of the right, but on the left, Sartre, and Gramsci, and others, including the socalled “frankfurt school.”
The electoral left in the West took the lessons of this trend in thinking and applied them. There is no truth, there are only group conflict perceptions.
So you think that way and you are captured by it.
I can think that way, and I often do, but I still retain the ability to think like a classic liberal, who sees in the US constitution a balance between democracy and individual rights.
if it is only democracy, then what you have is a situation where the conflicts will become sharper until one side wins and the other is totally vanquished. a one party state.
without the moderating effects of constitutional regimes, that is how it turns out
McCabe and Sztroke do not “get” this. they do not “get” their role as guardians of a constitutional order which balances democracy and liberal institutions.
they see it only as a game– a matter of imposing the collective will of their faction. laws, are mere words to them. deeds are what matters. they play with the words and laws as tools not ends in themselves.
this is why in America, the Left, meaning, everyone from the Democrat center to the Marxists, are generally stronger than those in the Republican party or conservatives or whatever. The socalled right in America is stuck in Enlightenment thinking, ie, classic liberalism, and it’s the Left which has moved on to a more powerful way of thinking which enhances joint action and collaboration.
The Left values victory and secular power above everything else.
And those who are not aligned with it, better get a deep understanding of that and fast. The past 3 years have helped us in this regard, and it’s why the Republicans now have a leader who has the instincts of a victor and not a priest. But the Republicans and conservatives had better advance their education quickly because guys like you are a mile ahead.
That’s why you never stop arguing even the most obviously wrong positions. Will is strong, “truth” and its cousin “justice” are what the strong say it is. Thrasymachus.
That’s the world you want, it’s obvious from the way you talk, but one day, it may come back to bite you. good luck.
this is also why the “right” in non-anglo saxon countries is always stronger.
anglo-saxons long have cherished their norms– not of absolute democracy, more so, the restraints on democracy, which grew out of the older anglo-saxon restraints on kings. but most of all, limited government. this has reached full bloom in an Anglo Saxon world where money is always the primary factor in all social things. this sounds bad in a way, but it has had a moderating effect on everything. and thus the Anglo Saxon world has grown very rich and very strong, vis a vis its rivals.
outside the English world, government is always stronger, and the factions of society understand the way to power is ultimately based on collective force. who defines what is money? that too is one of the roles of government. so there has always been a faster route to violence among the factions. this is why the anglo saxon governments are so stable. precisely because they are weaker and the factions in anglo saxon societies, are always weaker vis a vis the uber-faction, the plutocracy.
the plutocracy does not like violence., violence is wasteful., it can be a means of profit but happy slaves are always more profitable ones.
outside America and the Anglosphere, factional violence is always closer at hand.
but, we have factions too, and there is an entropy which can tear down even the most impressive government system in history. we can see the power of factions operating here every day, undermining our liberal institutions.
like those praising the errant rogues of the FBI who had no sense of respect for the incoming lawful administration whatsoever. and those who lick their boots here every day
but just remember, once the institutions have been very weakened and only collective will and action remain,. the right can act with collective will, too.
and if and when it does, it will be very ugly and the streets will run deep with blood, up to the horses’ nostrils
so be careful what you wish for
Kurtz, I tried therapy once when really young and didn’t see anything in it for me and still don’t, but thanks for the free consult.
I believe in facts and include them with my opinions. The GOP is obviously the post modern party that has abandoned it’s long held principles for “whatever squat Trump drops”, including high deficits, no free trade, abandoning democratic allies, aligning with Russia and N Korea, and now un-law and un-order with 2 chances civil rights for presidential cronies. Of course war against a free press fits right in.
Thanks again for the attempt …. and the laugh.
I tried therapy once when really young and didn’t see anything in it for me and still don’t, but thanks for the free consult.
That was the fork in your road; take the humility high road or the narcissus low road. You chose the low road and have developed into a full-throated NPD.
Anon doesn’t need this blog. He needs Dr. Phil.
Book– “[You] tried therapy once when really young”
It didn’t work.
Not surprised you were sent for it, though.
Young:
I got you penciled in for Solicitor General.
this was not psychological profiling., it was political philosophy.,
i was first tuned into this trend among Democrats by William S. Lind’s essay about the “Frankfurt school.”
Putting the history of philosophy aside, what is the salient trend?
Republicans have taken a nationalist tack, and Democrats a globalist one.
The PRC is the champion of globalism now and since Deng Xiaoping realized the dynamic potential of China to become an industrial powerhouse and ride the stallion of free trade to global domination. Inside the Chinese mind, this is nationalism for their own benefit; they advocate globalism because they have cleverly captured global institutions like the WHO. They advocate globalism inside the US via their proxies, because they want to keep on fleecing America via free trade. They hate Donald, because he slowed that down.
Like it or not, the increasingly obvious identity between perceived Chicom interests, and the Democrat leadership strategies, adhere now recently with increasing nearness. .
This was not always so. Nixon was the one to make fast friends with Chou En Lai, at an opportune time for it. But the friendship has worn thin especially since the fall of the USSR.
And as you pointed out the other day, Obama was not entirely captured by that trend– his pivot to asia, his diplomacy with Vietnam, and arguably, the TPP represented American leadership contrary to the PRC rival.
But, under Clinton, whose husband literally took campaign donations from a PLA colonel, and her factional backers in international finance, who dominates the current scene far more than Obama does, there is a strong desire to return to more amiable relations with the PRC. “Get rid of Trump” is the marching orders both from Beijing and from the current Democrat Leadership.
You play your own role in that here every day. Russia Russia Russia is a bogeyman. Russia has nukes, and land; but a very small economy compared to the US or PRC, and a small population. its dabbling in the election was small and highly exagerrated in significance. You dream that the loss was because of Russia. You give Russia too much credit.
but in reality, the PRC is the real rival and the real adversary of the US if there is one. Decide how much Democrat cheerleaders, you want to carry water for the Chinese communist oligarchs. one day your friend may become your master.
You will have to figure out which side you’re on folks!
For my part, I would like to see enmity between American factions die down, and a return to a more congenial situation with the PRC, characterized by trade, but fairer trade. I don’t want war but war seems to want us. At some point Democrats are going to have to decide how much help they want to give the Chicoms in their increasingly fierce strategic alignment against the USA.
Again: Russia is no threat, besides nukes. Russia economic interests as a net oil exporter are actually aligned with America’s. But the PRC is our economic rival.
The PRC is trying to float a gold backed cryptocurrency that they control that they hope will break the dollar’s back. Or at least cripple it. something to rival bitcoin, which is on the rise too. if they succeed, if the US dollar is destroyed, then the USA will go down in flames. this has been a “scare story” for decades, but under the emergent economic disaster– it is a real possibility.
They are fantastic liars. They might have known about the virus back as far as October. or it might have indeed come from gain-of-function experiments done in the Wuhan bsl-4 lab. Either way, they are liars and failed to warn the world.
if you want to pick friends like the ruthless brutal chicom liars, you are making a pact with the devil. well, you’ve been warned!
The therapist didn’t care for him either.
Kurtz, I’m seriously disappointed in this lame argument:
China says the sky is blue.
Biden says the sky is blue.
Therefore Biden is a communist.
Hellooo! Globalism is the future Jack and every serious analysis understands that. Because China is acting on that fact and we aren’t under Trump, doesn’t mean those who understand it – see the rest of the world – are communists who are in bed with China. It means they understand we can’t abandon the field to China and must compete with them for leadership, and yes, cooperate where possible and where we have common interests. To the extent we can cooperate with Russia – see Iran agreement – on trade or joint ventures, let’s do it (It was called the “reset” in the beginning of the Obama administration when Putin wasn’t the president). To the extent they are murdering people in England and the Ukraine, undermining NATO, and trying to decide our elections,
Kurtz, that is a joke of an argument, and like much of your posts, premised on the lame idea that Trump is a serious man who understands anything other than what stimulates his weak ego.
BTB– Did you get a prescription when you went to that therapist?
If so, start taking your pills again.
Very clever Young! A step up from your usual “You’re a queer!”
For someone who’s idea of debate is hurling insults and has claimed to be an attorney, shouldn’t we expect a little more than middle school?
That’s why you’re my AG!
~ Your Royal Generalissimo
It’s True. Bill Clinton Asked Russia to Interfere in a US Presidential Election
President Bill Clinton interfered in the 1996 Russia election that brought Boris Yeltsin to power for a second term. A leaked White House memo shows Clinton and Yeltsin had agreed to support each other in their respective reelection bids. The memo says that, if Yeltsin lifted the ban against poultry imports from the US, it would help Clinton’s campaign because Clinton’s state (Arkansas) produced 40% of the poultry export – and Yeltsin complied. Hillary also capitalized on the agreement by investing $1,000 in Tyson chicken, which returned $98,540 in less than one year.
https://needtoknow.news/2017/07/true-bill-clinton-asked-russia-interfere-us-presidential-election/
Let’s add that the evidence is piling up that Hillary was preferable to Putin.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/05/07/new-doj-documents-show-president-obama-was-in-on-the-flynn-takedown-n2568420
The balance of power between these deep state coup plotters and those working within the limits of the law, always favored the deep state. Not only do they have the power of the law at their disposal, they aren’t bound by it. They know their adversaries won’t have that luxury if they expect indictments and prosecutions to stand. The penalties upon conviction need to be so severe that this will never happen again.
The “deep state” protected Trump and brought down Hillary.
If you’re going to follow the game, learn how to keep score.
If you’re going to follow the game, learn how to keep score.
Tell me what game you’re referring to and I’ll tell you the score.
The parrot repeats the lie even after the proof is in.
months ago you denied the Deep state but now you claim it was against her. let’s take a look at this plausible assertion.
What is the Deep State. it is not controlled by either party. probably it favors Democrats to a large degree because they favor more and more spending over time, but, they suck in people from both parties who see their interests as defined most of all by their paychecks. this was Eisenhower’s notion of the “military industrial complex,” perhaps.
it is also not unitary and monolithic- it is diverse, yet still cognizable.
it is essentially the deeply embedded bureaucracies. at the Federal Reserve, CIA, FBI, whatever agency, the article III lifetime tenured tyrant system, and their civil counterparts in big corporations particularly international finance.
I agree that comey kicked hillary in the ankles. I believe he was angry at bill for taking Lynch out of the game with his hamfisted conversation in the hangar. Comey was forced to make a call above his pay grade. But Comey like Clinton, is not acting according to anybody’s orders but his own. Sometimes the actors who play roles in the “Deep State” come into conflict.
The other actors misusing FBI powers, like McCabe and Sztroke, were clearly pulling strings in a way that was nefarious and corrupt.
I’m mocking you and other conspiracy fans who somehow can’t even keep score by calling it the deep state. They are civil servants hired on a meritocracy basis and include people of all and no political persuasion. That is fortunately not a requirement. This system is regulated pretty tightly compared to private employment and replaced patronage and nepotism which was the source and product of political machines.
” It is a new twist on echo journalism. McCabe the CNN analyst was echoing his own false account and calling it news analysis.”
Yeah, but it’s what the Democrats want to hear so why should they care??? Like I have said before, one of the way people whose belief system has been shattered by reality (cognitive dissonance) defend themselves from having to admit their belief system was wrong is to “herd” up with other mentally ill persons with the same false beliefs. The Media is a big help with this, supplying liars and shills to encourage the mentally ill Democrats to continue to believe stupid things. I think that is one of the functions now of the main stream media – not truth, but a place for the mentally ill to hang out with other mentally ill people and get reassured that they are not mentally ill.
Move this interview back to the 1950s UFO cult that was the subject of the landmark study of cognitive dissonance, and McCabe would have been spouting off that he also saw UFO’s and had been abducted by Allura, a sexy alien from the planet Chronos.
This stuff really is that stupid.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
that’s why FBI is also known to stand for FAMOUS BUT INCOMPETENT
even FBI agents joke about this i guess
JT falsely pretends that FBI discussions of possibly dropping charges against Flynn preceded the discovery of his treasonous discussion with the Russian Ambassador. He may not like it, but the Logan Act is still on the books – it was revised by law as recently as 1994 – and is the reason why Flynn lied about his discussion with not only the FBI, but Pence. Why else would he lie?
JT is a law professor, but here relies on deception, not clear analysis. If he’s on Trump’s defense team that makes sense.
Sorry:
“JT falsely pretends that FBI discussions of possibly dropping charges against Flynn DIDN’T precede the discovery of his treasonous discussion with the Russian Ambassador.”
No treason. That type of discussion is normal as one administration goes out and another comes in. He said nothing that didn’t meat with known policy of Trump.
The Democrats screwed America and Anon is acting like a parrot. Democrats created more hostility with a major nuclear power than need be. Politics for democrats supercedes the comfort and safety of working Americans. With our real enemy, China, Democrats found comfortable bedmates and the present nominee for the Democrat Presidential ticket dealt with the Chinese to benefit the financial wellbeing of his family.
I bet Anon sleeps with Chinese Pajamas just to feel close and comfy.
In what universe would it be rational for Flynn to lie knowing full well, as he remarked to the agents that came to interview him, that the FBI possessed a transcript of his discussion with the Russian ambassador? And in what way was the discussion “treasonous”?
Flynn admitted under oath to lying. Ask him, but probably because he feared being discovered paying off the Russians for helping his boss get elected, That is also established fact.
It was treasonous because he was paying off the Russians – no doubt he was under instruction to tell them this – for interfering in our election because it benefited his boss while undermining our election, which by the way Trump lost the vote in yet ended up president.
Right. It’s clearly the delusional Progressive Left speaking here. I think I’ll sign off then.
Flynn was intimidated by the FBI. HE ran out of money and his family was being threatened. I would do the same to protect my family when thieves and liars were in control of their fate. But now with the truth revealed take note he cannot be intimidated any longer so he tells things as they are.
He served America faithfully something that when politics was involved his opponents could never do. Now, after the files have been released garbage continue to trash him.
You ever wonder what an audit of his son’s cases would turn up? Twenty-odd years with the US Attorney’s office in Washington and Frisco.
bookworm:
“Flynn admitted under oath to lying. Ask him, but probably because he feared being discovered paying off the Russians for helping his boss get elected, That is also established fact.”
*******************
Mccain “admitted” to the world that he committed war crimes while at the Hanoi Hilton. Do I have to explain to you once again that an admission has to be volitional? Do I have to explain to you that “volitional” does not mean admitting something if the bad guy has your kid figuratively locked in his basement threatening to do him harm? Do I have to explain the word “volitional? Do I have to explain “established”? I surely have to explain “fact”?
Mespo, since you are comparing the FBI to toturers in North Viet Nam, why don’t you just post the entire communist manifesto?
Comrade, we are providing you the text you requested, though you will have to translate it into Russian yourself as we can not communicate in both languages as well as you do.
до свида́ния
Our Doctrines
Communists of various nationalities have
assembled in London, and sketched the following Manifesto, to be published in the English, French, German, Italian, Flemish and Danish languages.
I. BOURGEOIS AND PROLETARIANS
The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at
large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
page 2 / 58
In the earlier epochs of history, we find almost everywhere a complicated arrangement of society into various orders, a manifold gradation of social rank. In ancient Rome we have patricians, knights, plebeians, slaves; in the Middle Ages, feudal lords, vassals, guild-masters, journeymen, apprentices, serfs; in almost all of these classes, again, subordinate gradations.
The modern bourgeois society that has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society has not done away with class antagonisms. It has but established new classes, new conditions of oppression, new forms of struggle in place of the old ones. Our epoch, the epoch of the bourgeoisie, possesses, however, this distinctive feature: it has simplified the class antagonisms: Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes, directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat.
From the serfs of the Middle Ages sprang the chartered burghers of the earliest towns. From these burgesses the first elements
of the bourgeoisie were developed.
The discovery of America, the rounding of the Cape, opened up fresh ground for the rising bourgeoisie. The East-Indian and Chinese markets, the colonisation of America, trade with the
page 3 / 58
colonies, the increase in the means of exchange and in commodities generally, gave to commerce, to navigation, to industry, an impulse never before known, and thereby, to the revolutionary element in the tottering feudal society, a rapid development.
The feudal system of industry, under which industrial production was monopolised by closed guilds, now no longer sufficed for the growing wants of the new markets. The manufacturing system took its place. The guild-masters were pushed on one side by the manufacturing middle class; division of labour between the different corporate guilds vanished in the face of division of
labour in each single workshop.
Meantime the markets kept ever growing, the demand ever rising. Even manufacture no longer sufficed. Thereupon, steam and machinery revolutionised industrial production. The place of manufacture was taken by the giant, Modern Industry, the place of the industrial middle class, by industrial millionaires, the
leaders of whole industrial armies, the modern bourgeois.
Modern industry has established the world-market, for which the discovery of America paved the way. This market has given an immense development to commerce, to navigation, to communication by land. This development has, in its time, reacted on the
extension of industry; and in proportion as industry, commerce,
page 4 / 58
navigation, railways extended, in the same proportion the bourgeoisie developed, increased its capital, and pushed into the background every class handed down from the Middle Ages.
We see, therefore, how the modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange.
Each step in the development of the bourgeoisie was accompanied by a corresponding political advance of that class. An
oppressed class under the sway of the feudal nobility, an armed and self-governing association in the mediaeval commune; here independent urban republic (as in Italy and Germany), there taxable “third estate” of the monarchy (as in France),
afterwards, in the period of manufacture proper, serving either the semi-feudal or the absolute monarchy as a counterpoise against the nobility, and, in fact, corner-stone of the great monarchies in general, the bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world-market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern State is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.
The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part.
page 5 / 58
The bourgeoisie, wherever it has got the upper hand, has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations. It has
pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties that bound man to
his “natural superiors,” and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous “cash payment.” It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of
religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It
has resolved personal worth into exchange value. And in place of the numberless and feasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.
The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation.
The bourgeoisie has disclosed how it came to pass that the brutal display of vigour in the Middle Ages, which Reactionists
page 6 / 58
so much admire, found its fitting complement in the most slothful indolence. It has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former Exoduses of nations and crusades.
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations,
with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and
opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all
that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face
with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his
relations with his kind.
The need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe. It must nestle everywhere, settle everywhere, establish connexions everywhere.
page 7 / 58
The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world-market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of Reactionists, it has
drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have
been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilised nations, by industries that no longer
work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant
lands and climes. In place of the old local and national
seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal inter-dependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures, there arises a world literature.
The bourgeoisie, by the rapid improvement of all instruments of production, by the immensely facilitated means of communication, draws all, even the most barbarian, nations into civilisation.
The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with
page 8 / 58
which it batters down all Chinese walls, with which it forces the barbarians’ intensely obstinate hatred of foreigners to capitulate. It compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image.
The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the
towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural
life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so
it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilised ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois,
the East on the West.
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production,
and of property. It has agglomerated production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but
loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier and one customs-tariff. The
bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has
page 9 / 58
created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground — what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in
feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the
already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted to it, and by the economical and political sway of the bourgeois class.
A similar movement is going on before our own eyes. Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic
page 10 / 58
means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells. For many a decade past the history
of industry and commerce is but the history of the revolt of
modern productive forces against modern conditions of production, against the property relations that are the conditions for the existence of the bourgeoisie and of its rule. It is enough to
mention the commercial crises that by their periodical return put on its trial, each time more threateningly, the existence of the entire bourgeois society. In these crises a great part not only
of the existing products, but also of the previously created productive forces, are periodically destroyed. In these crises
there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity — the epidemic of over-production. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism; it appears as if a famine, a universal war of devastation had cut off the supply of every means of subsistence; industry and commerce seem to be destroyed; and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence,
too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so soon as they overcome these fetters, they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property. The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them. And how does the bourgeoisie get over these crises? On the one
page 11 / 58
hand inforced destruction of a mass of productive forces; on the other, by the conquest of new markets, and by the more thorough exploitation of the old ones. That is to say, by paving the way
for more extensive and more destructive crises, and by diminishing the means whereby crises are prevented.
The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself.
But not only has the bourgeoisie forged the weapons that bring death to itself; it has also called into existence the men who are to wield those weapons — the modern working class — the proletarians.
In proportion as the bourgeoisie, i.e., capital, is developed,
in the same proportion is the proletariat, the modern working class, developed — a class of labourers, who live only so long
as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labour increases capital. These labourers, who must sell themselves piece-meal, are a commodity, like every other article of commerce, and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.
Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labour, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and consequently, all charm for the workman. He
page 12 / 58
becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and most easily acquired knack, that is required of him. Hence, the cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance, and for the propagation of his
race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of
labour, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion
therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases. Nay more, in proportion as the use of machinery and division of labour increases, in the same proportion the burden of toil also increases, whether by prolongation of the working hours, by increase of the work exacted in a given time or by increased speed of the machinery, etc.
btb:
Yep, apples implies oranges. That whistling sound you heard over your head was my point.
they are apt comparisons. both were locked up, for starters.
and both repudiated their earlier “confessions.”
well said mespo
Give it up. You are not convincing anybody, and you are shredding your remaining 1% credibility rating even more.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
the Logan Act is still on the books ”
The Logan Act might still be on the books, but FBI lying, entrapment, false investigations etc. are not on the books.
Anon can’t deal with the information released including the hand written note that says it all. That is why he keeps talking about the Logan Act which is meaningless. Flynn, in his position, didn’t violate the Logan Act (even if Constitutional) but Kerry absolutely did and he caused harm to American policy.
Hmmm. Wasn’t that law about NOT having a private email server and running classified info through it still on the books???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The face masks have been removed
Now let’s indict the crooks.
The intramural culture of the Department of Justice has been so diseased that it nurtured the careers of McCabe, Sztrok, Mueller, Comey, and Rosenstein. Weasels, schemers, abusers, anything but public servants. One talent Trump has is pulling away masks.
One story that hasn’t been told is that of the private sector careers of Mueller and Comey. One three separate occasions, Mueller landed plum positions in private law firms which he abandoned after two or three years in favor of public employment. Comey was hired in 2010 by a hedge-fund in Connecticut. He made excellent coin in that position. Evidence he ever knew jack about that business is nil. Diane used to babble incoherently about compromat on Trump. OK, just what was James Comey paid to do in those three years?
Can someone please accurately proof-read these excellent posts? Please see “Flynn also stated that he still fears that Flynn was a national security threat.” These sorts of typos are common and often obscure the meaning of the content.
I’m not sure these typos are bad — it forces you to think about the message & slow down. JT is prolific – I prefer he cont’ to be prolific across a lot of different topics than slow down for a few typos — my opinion. I do understand your point.
Kate, I can all but guarantee you that Turley wouldn’t mind if you proof-read all of his posts and made the corrections. There you have it. You got the job and we will all be counting on you everytime we read one of his posts. Thanks. 🙂
“McCabe reinventing history “
Is that not what our friends on the left have been doing for years? … Reinventing history and then extending the lies to issues they could have no knowledge about? Some of those people are twisting and turning in agony on this blog. They are holding to facts that are proven untrue by the transcripts and waiting for directions from those that normally provide them with talking points.
Just checked to see if Andy’s GoFundMe is still up and running. It’s shut, but Andy got a $500,000 money bag. So what did CNN pay Andy?
His wife’s a doctor and by some accounts he is independently wealthy. He had the sort of boarding school education that’s quite unusual in this day and age.
Eventually the dust settles and we can see the enemy.
Heads need roll, all the way to the top, if we are to restore the rule of law in this nation with any confidence, and that includes hillary for certain.
See also the egregiously biased and misleading account of the whole thing published by Ed Luce of the Financial Times today.
“In this story, McCabe is not a new analyst. He is news.”
****************************
However, as a person he’s not a scatology analyst. He is ….